9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Revival of a company in liquidation by unanimous resolution of shareholders. 2. Objection to revival based on public policy and limitation. 3. Application of Limitation Act and Companies Act to revival of a company. 4. Bar by period of limitation for revival of a company. Analysis: The judgment concerns an application seeking permission to revive a company in liquidation based on a unanimous decision by the shareholders. The Regional Director of the Department of Company Affairs opposed the revival, citing public policy concerns and limitation issues. The Regional Director argued that the company had been in liquidation for 35 years, creditors' claims had been settled, and the revival attempt was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act and Companies Act. The court acknowledged that unanimous shareholder resolution for revival is not against public policy, especially when creditors have been repaid, and surplus assets exist. However, the objection based on limitation was deemed well-founded. The court cited Article 100 of the Limitation Act, which sets a one-year period to alter a court decision, and Sections 559 and 560 of the Companies Act, which specify time limits for declaring dissolution void or restoring a company's name, respectively. The court found the revival attempt, after 35 years, to be time-barred under these provisions. The petitioners argued that the Regional Director did not raise the limitation issue in their report, but the court held that a legal objection like limitation can be raised at any time, regardless of its mention in the report. Consequently, the court concluded that the application for revival could not be granted due to the limitation bar. In conclusion, the court denied the permission sought by the company for the revival, emphasizing the significance of adhering to the statutory limitation periods under the Limitation Act and Companies Act for such applications.
|
